Corruption and Sustainability: Like Oil & Water Do Not Mix | Triple Pundit (RP Siegel)

Recently, the Guardian ran a post addressing the question of why eliminating corruption is crucial for sustainability. A first glance the two topics might seem unrelated—the one about criminal behavior and the other about something like environmental responsibility.

Where exactly then, do the two ideas come together?

Merriam-Webster defines corruption as, “impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle,” and also as “inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery).”

A sustainable business, on the other hand, is one whose practices must be in alignment with the company’s core values, which, in turn, must be aligned with those of the larger system and the greater good, both in the immediate present, and with an eye towards future generations. Thus there is an implicit integrity involved.

Corruption short-circuits that alignment, and undermines that integrity, diverting valuable resources into the narrow coffers of a greedy few. It also breaks the chain of responsiveness to market, evolutionary, environmental, or compassionate signals and replaces them with a rigid reordering that has only the  resource diversion as its sole purpose.

via Corruption and Sustainability: Like Oil & Water Do Not Mix.

The Swiss Compliance House: a Model for FCPA Compliance? | Thomas Fox – JDSupra

In an article in the January/February issue of the ACC Docket entitled “Five Fundamentals for Taking Management Compliance Seriously”, author Daniel Lucien Buhr discusses a model for a compliance system which he describes as the “Compliance House”. The Compliance House is a model which has been developed by Swiss businesses to use as the foundation of effective compliance management by ensuring that by “binding values and appropriate compliance management they can safeguard their integrity, and avoid or contain breaches of the law.” Buhr believes that it is the basic legal responsibility of any company board of directors to make certain breaches of law are either avoided or, if they occur, are detected early enough so that the company may remedy the situation.

Buhr begins with a very basic understanding of the term compliance, which he defines it as “ensuring law abidance.” However, the author goes on to expand this definition by noting that both private and public stakeholders of a company will expect that the company shall comply with applicable standards, therefore compliance may also be defined as “the state of integrity expected by stakeholders on the basis of civic responsibility of the companies.” This is a far different version than most US companies would state. Most US companies would try and obey the law but not include a complete culture of integrity.

via The Swiss Compliance House: a Model for FCPA Compliance? | Thomas Fox – JDSupra.

Why Some Enterprise Search Tools Can Compromise the Integrity of your eDiscovery Process | ERM Blogs

As part of bringing eDiscovery in-house, one might consider using enterprise search tools, open source search tools, portal search, or embedded (free) search components to execute the negotiated Booleans, find relevant documents, and copy them to a preservation location (often a dedicated file server).

Although this may seem like a logical approach, there are many risks when non-specialized search tools are used in an eDiscovery process. In short, many of them lack some of the functionality that is required to make the collection process defensible on court. The following are just a few examples of best practices [as defined by organizations such as EDRM (www.edrm.net) and the Sedona Conference (http://www.thesedonaconference.org/)] which cannot be achieved by many of the non-specialized enterprise search tools.

1. In order to make in-house eDiscovery defensible in court, one must prove that the file has not been modified since it was collected from a particular location. Therefore it is very important to track hash values (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint_(computing)) from the moment of collection until the final production of a document. If two Word documents have the same binary content (exactly the same text, file and document properties), then they will have exactly the same hash value. It is critical to calculate and store these hash values for every document that is collected. Non-specialized enterprise search tools cannot…

2. When a document is collected from a particular location, various meta data related to the collection needs to be extracted and stored as well: data location, date and time (access, creation, and modification), and other available file (also known as Operating System) properties such as, but not limited to, size, and security access rights. Non-specialized enterprise search tools cannot…

3. For every document that is collected from a custodian or from a file system, yet not given to opposing counsel, you will have to justify why you do not disclose it to the other party. You will need to keep track of this as the eDiscovery process unfolds and you will need to save this information about every document collected. For example, it may be a duplicate, privileged, or confidential, or if it is non-responsive you need to track and document how or why you determined that. Non-specialized enterprise search tools cannot…

via Why Some Enterprise Search Tools Can Compromise the Integrity of your eDiscovery Process | ERM Blogs.

Global Integrity Drops China From Corruption-Watch List – WSJ.com

China was one of three countries dropped from a corruption-watch list created by non-profit anti-corruption group Global Integrity, which released its annual report earlier this week.

The other countries removed from the watch list were Georgia and Serbia. The Washington, D.C.-based group warned that being dropped from the list doesn’t mean corruption stopped in the countries, but rather that they made progress by establishing minimum anti-corruption safeguards.

via Global Integrity Drops China From Corruption-Watch List – WSJ.com.